Talk:Scarborough—Agincourt (federal electoral district)

Proposed article split
Opposed. This article is about the Federal riding. There is a separate article for the Provincial riding of the same name. If you want to expand the section on municipal politics, I suggest you create separate articles for the municipal wards. EncyclopediaUpdaticus (talk) 18:29, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm confused, it sounds like you support splitting off the municipal politics section into their own articles? I don't know why there's even info on the municipal wards on this page, they should be in their own articles. -- Earl Andrew - talk 00:30, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree, this proposed split makes no sense. Since nothing has happened in over a month, I'll remove the "split" templates.  --RFBailey (talk) 15:15, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * How does it not make sense? Municipal ward information does not belong in an article about a federal electoral district. I'm adding the tags again. If you think the proposed split makes no sense, why don't you tell us why! -- Earl Andrew - talk 16:35, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Read what the tags say: "It has been suggested that this article be split into a new article titled Ward 39 Scarborough—Agincourt, accessible from a disambiguation page." That's what makes no sense: there should clearly be an article about the federal electoral district, and this should be its name.  What the tags appear to be suggesting is that Scarborough—Agincourt should be a disambiguation page, with the implication that there not be an article about the federal district---that's what makes no sense.  If you don't think the municipal information belongs here---which I agree that it doesn't---then remove it and add it to articles about the wards, like EncyclopediaUpdaticus suggested.  But this is not what the "split" templates suggest, which is why I removed them.  --RFBailey (talk) 00:06, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * This is the template that should be used in this situation. --RFBailey (talk) 00:13, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * A mis-understanding then. Thanks for fixing. -- Earl Andrew - talk 01:23, 12 May 2014 (UTC)